Disposed

Syed.Mohammad Hashmi v. Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022WRIC/12067/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order for electricity supply disconnection pending deposit of dues. The Court granted an interim stay on coercive action, allowed the petitioner to file an objection, and reserved liberty to deposit a lesser sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with consequential restoration of supply.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on coercive action; liberty to file objection with speaking order within four weeks; liberty to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- subject to restoration of supply.

Syed.Mohammad Hashmi Vs Managing Director… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12067 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Syed.Mohammad Hashmi Respondent :- Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Udit Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Udit Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.4.2022 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand (second) Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ghazipur calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,65,766/-, failing which permanent disconnection of the supply would be made and the amount recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner disputes the correctness of the demand. He further submitted that earlier the respondents issued a bill for a sum of Rs.15,88,019/- and now it has been increased to sum noted in the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents states that in case objection is filed against the impugned demand, it will be decided by respondent no.3.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file objection against the impugned demand and in which event, the same will be decided by respondent no.3 by means of a speaking order within four weeks.

¶10

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned demand notice. Thereafter, impugned demand notice will abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no.3 on the representation of the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner shall file true attested copy of the instant order along with his representation / objection within two weeks from today before respondent no.3, failing which

¶12

the instant order will lapse automatically and the respondent shall be at liberty to enforce the impugned demand.

¶13

In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- and respondent no.3 be directed to restore the electricity supply subject to decision which will be taken on his representation.

¶14

Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

¶15

Accordingly, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- without prejudice to his right and contentions that may be raised by him in his representation / objection. As soon as, the amount is deposited, respondent no.3 shall restore the electricity supply.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Rameez

¶17

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.06.07 18:24:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Syed.Mohammad Hashmi v. Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed.Mohammad Hashmi v. Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Chandra Verma Vs Kanpur Development Authority

Rohit Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others